EDB Centre for Integration Studies: The "rich" support the Eurasian Union more often than the "poor"

St. Petersburg, 1 November 2016. A survey of the preferences of different income groups in the EAEU countries suggests that higher-income citizens are more positive towards the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) than economically weaker groups. A total of 76% and 74% of high-income respondents in Kazakhstan and Belarus respectively support the union, compared to 65% and 57% respectively among low-income groups. Low-income respondents state they feel indifferent or negative towards the EAEU relatively more often. This does not relate to Russia where the groups with different levels of income demonstrate practically no differences in their opinions (not less than 64% of respondents in both income groups support the union). These are the findings of the EDB Integration Barometer, a yearly joint research by Eurasian Development Bank's (EDB) Centre for Integration Studies and Eurasian Monitor, an international partnership, run since 2012. In 2016, 8,500 respondents from seven countries took part in the survey.

The authors of the report suggest that the respondents' income influences their attitudes towards integration for a number of reasons. First, the attitudes towards economic integration are influenced by a person's perception of their competitiveness in the labour market and/or business. The more competitive they feel, the higher the probability is that the respondent will see integration as an opportunity and not a threat. This concerns, for example, employment, study and business opportunities abroad. Second, higher-income people have close social ties with relatives and friends in neighbouring countries more often and this determines their more positive attitude towards integration as a whole.

Table 1

It is known that Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic and Russia formed the Eurasian Economic Union (in effect, a single market for the five countries). What do you think about this decision? / Do you believe that our country should also join this union? [shares of the answers Positively, Indifferently and Negatively by income groups]

In 2016, the respondents in the EAEU member states were also asked about their attitudes towards the possible introduction of a single currency, the permission of free movement of citizens within the EAEU, the expansion of the union, the entering into a free trade and investment agreement between the EAEU and the EU, and the creation of a common broadcasting company. In Belarus, high-income people answer 'yes' to all the above questions more often than low-income respondents. In Russia and Armenia, the difference between high- and low-income groups was recorded only in their answers to the questions about the single currency and the free trade agreement between the EAEU countries and the EU. In Russia higher-income categories favour both possibilities more often than low-income groups, while in Armenia the possible introduction of a single currency is supported more often by low-income respondents. In the Kyrgyz Republic, higher-income groups welcome free movements within the EAEU relatively more often, while in Kazakhstan this preference was more often voiced by low-income respondents.

Various income groups also perceive differently the relations between the CIS countries in the next five years. In Armenia, Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic and Tajikistan higher-income respondents believe that the countries will converge more often than low-income ones. In Belarus, Russia and Moldova, however, there was no obvious relation between the opinions of the respondents and their financial situation (analysed by two parameters – financial condition and consumer status).

The differences in the opinions of the income groups about hostile countries are also noticeable. The respondents from Kazakhstan demonstrated the most significant differences in their perceptions of hostile countries depending on their income group. Higher-income respondents mentioned hostile countries  rarely while low-income people were more active in identifying "enemies" (47% mentioned Ukraine, 37% the U.S., and 17% Turkey).

In Russia, high-income respondents and people with a high consumer status described many countries as friendly more often than those with lower income.

When asked about the countries attractive for employment, high-income respondents demonstrated their readiness to work in the U.S. and Germany more often than low-income groups. This trend was recorded in Armenia, the Kyrgyz Republic and Russia. In Belarus and Kazakhstan, however, no differences were found between the income groups.

As for studying in the CIS countries, there was almost no difference in the opinions of the groups, except in Russia. However, respondents with lower income stated they had no interest in studying abroad more often.

As to whether the respondents will select Russia as a country for studying abroad, differences between the groups were recorded in Belarus and Kazakhstan only. In Belarus, this choice is more often made by high-income respondents, while in Kazakhstan by low-income people.

As for selecting certain countries for studying, in some countries (the Kyrgyz Republic, Moldova and Russia) high-income respondents would prefer to study in Germany and the U.S. (which seems obvious due to their objective opportunities). However, no such relation was found in the answers of the respondents from other countries.

The full version of the publication is available online.